←back to thread

Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

(www.theguardian.com)
523 points mhga | 3 comments | 08 Jul 25 02:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.642s | source
Show context
rich_sasha ◴[08 Jul 25 06:21 UTC] No.44497577[source]▶
Offending or over-accusing sides of this conflict is a very asymmetric risk. Misrepresent Palestinians negatively and you may eventually get an angry, vague letter - with a quarter of signatories doing so anonymously. Misrepresent Israelis negatively and you get very powerful and well-organised protests. BBC is sadly doing the rational thing of staying clear of suggesting Israel may be doing some bad things. It is a Corporation after all and so acts in corporate ways.

But this is also the example coming to them from the top. On the occasions where Israel has clearly committed egregious violations, such as shooting at people massed at the aid dispensal locations or the medics who then got buried in shallow graves, Israel gets barely a whimper of criticism from European politicians - and apparently full-throated cheering and support from the US. The ICC arrest warrant is as forgotten as last year's snow.

So why are we surprised the BBC doesn't want to stick its head above the parapet?

replies(9): >>44497864 #>>44497881 #>>44497983 #>>44498194 #>>44498240 #>>44498415 #>>44499944 #>>44500139 #>>44503427 #
dgellow ◴[08 Jul 25 07:26 UTC] No.44497864[source]▶
> So why are we surprised the BBC doesn't want to stick its head above the parapet?

Whenever a group publicly criticizes a behavior, you see the rhetorical question “Why are you surprised?”, and that feels dismissive and disingenuous.

Yes, BBC has some reasons to behave the way they do, sure. It’s really not relevant to the points being brought.

Every actor has reasons to behave. People are critical of the behavior, whatever the actor’s incentives are. Because a behavior feels more logical or rational it shouldn’t be discussed? If you would answer negatively then what’s the point of asking your question? Is it just to express your cynicism of that whole situation?

replies(1): >>44497947 #
1. rich_sasha ◴[08 Jul 25 07:42 UTC] No.44497947[source]▶
> Yes, BBC has some reasons to behave the way they do, sure. It’s really not relevant to the points being brought

My point is they are responding to external constraints shaped by the broader society - the very same group who seems to put up with Israel's outrageous stunts. To angst about the first but not the second is the illogical bit to me. The BBC is not quite a weathervane, but like so many commentators in this space, is so heavily constrained in what it can do that it's meaningless to focus on the actions, not the constraints.

It's like when people are shocked that politicians are not morally superior to the average person in the society that raised them. You sample from a group, you're going to mimick its distribution.

So I am not surprised or shocked how the BBC is acting. I am surprised and shocked that the many societies (Europe, America, ME) seems to accept this situation, as a root cause if you like.

replies(1): >>44499613 #
2. sillyfluke ◴[08 Jul 25 13:08 UTC] No.44499613[source]▶
>To angst about the first but not the second is the illogical bit to me.

Where are you getting this from, this idea that the ones that are angsting about the first, are not angsting about the second?

pg just recently tweeted about the ludicrousness of the 83 year-old historian (?) getting arrested for holding up a sign in support of Palestian Action, now effectively deemed a terrorist organization in the UK as I understand it.

This post is about the BBC, so the comments are about this specific news about the BBC. The BBC is constrained but not as much as the UK government obviously. It even tries to report objectively on scandals inside the BBC, to what extent it succeeds is always up for debate, as it is in this case debated here.

replies(1): >>44499680 #
3. rich_sasha ◴[08 Jul 25 13:16 UTC] No.44499680[source]▶
This thread is literally full of confused commentary, which is what my (slightly meta) post obliquely referred to.

I ma glad there are people out there who do care.